Evaluating Physician Performance at Individualizing Care: A Pilot Study Tracking Contextual Errors in Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Objectives. Clinical decision making requires 2 distinct cognitive skills: the ability to classify patients' conditions into diagnostic and management categories that permit the application of research evidence and the ability to individualize or—more specifically—to contextualize care for patients whose circumstances and needs require variation from the standard approach to care. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a methodology for measuring physicians' performance at contextualizing care and compare it to their performance at planning biomedically appropriate care. Methods. First, the authors drafted 3 cases, each with 4 variations, 3 of which are embedded with biomedical and/or contextual information that is essential to planning care. Once the cases were validated as instruments for assessing physician performance, 54 internal medicine residents were then presented with opportunities to make these preidentified biomedical or contextual errors, and data were collected on information elicitation and error making. Results. The case validation process was successful in that, in the final iteration, the physicians who received the contextual variant of cases proposed an alternate plan of care to those who received the baseline variant 100% of the time. The subsequent piloting of these validated cases unmasked previously unmeasured differences in physician performance at contextualizing care. The findings, which reflect the performance characteristics of the study population, are presented. Conclusions. This pilot study demonstrates a methodology for measuring physician performance at contextualizing care and illustrates the contribution of such information to an overall assessment of physician practice.

Keywords

medical error patient-centered care communication quality of care.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kohn LT , Corrigan JM , Donaldson MS , eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 2000.

Weiner SJ Contextualizing medical decisions to individualize care: lessons from the qualitative sciences. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 ;19:281—5.

Weiner SJ

From research evidence to context: the challenge of individualizing care. Evidence Based

Med. 2004;9:132—3.

Sangani B. , Kalyanaraman V. , Bhargava M. , Dwek J. Autopsy rates and diagnosis. JAMA. 1999;281:2181.

American Society for Quality Control. ASQC Glossary and Tables for Statistical Quality Control. Milwaukee, Wis: American Society for Quality Control; 1983.

Brinke AT , Sterk PJ , Masclee AAM , et al. Risk factors of frequent exacerbations in difficult-to-treat asthma. Eur Respir J. 2005;26:812—8.

Kiljander TO , Salomaa ER , Hietanen EK , Terho EO Gastroesophageal reflux in asthmatics: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study with omeprazole. Chest . 1999;116:1150—2.

Brown H. , Prescott R. Applied Mixed Models in Medicine. New York: John Wiley; 1999.

Lang F. , Floyd MR , Beine KL Clues to patients' explanations and concerns about their illnesses: a call for active listening. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:222—7.

10.

Cuddy MM , Dillon GF , Clauser BE , et al. Assessing the validity of the USMLE step 2 clinical knowledge examination through an evaluation of its clinical relevance. Acad Med. 2004; 79(suppl):S43—5.

11.

Glassman PA , Luck J. , O'Gara EM, Peabody JW. Using standardized patients to measure quality: evidence from the literature and a prospective study. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26:644—53.

12.

Norcini J. Back to the future: clinical vignettes and the measurement of physician performance . Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:813—4.

13.

Peabody JW , Luck J. , Glassman P. , et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:771—80.